NEW YORK – Dozens of bills are advancing through statehouses nationwide that would put an array of new obstacles — legal, financial and psychological — in the paths of women seeking abortions.

The tactics vary: mandatory sonograms and anti-abortion counseling, sweeping limits on insurance coverage, bans on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. To abortion-rights activists, they add up to the biggest political threat since the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 that legalized abortion nationwide.

"It's just this total onslaught," said Elizabeth Nash, who tracks state legislation for the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-health research organization that supports abortion rights.

What's different this year is not the raw number of anti-abortion bills, but the fact that many of the toughest, most substantive measures have a good chance of passage due to gains by conservative Republicans in last year's legislative and gubernatorial elections. On Tuesday, South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard signed into law a bill that would impose a longest-in-the-nation waiting period of three days before women could have an abortion — and also require them to undergo counseling at pregnancy help centers that discourage abortions.

"We're seeing an unprecedented level of bills that would have a serious impact on women's access to abortion services that very possibly could become law," said Rachel Sussman, senior policy analyst for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

On the other side, anti-abortion strategists such as Mary Spaulding Balch of the National Right to Life Committee have been scrambling to keep up with legislative developments: "Until the bills get on the governors' desks, it's premature to claim victory. But it's moving faster than it has in previous years. ... We're very pleased with the progress thus far."

In a number of states, lawmakers are considering bills that would ban elective abortions after 20 or 21 weeks of pregnancy. These measures are modeled after a law approved last year in Nebraska that was based on the disputed premise that a fetus can feel pain after 20 weeks.

The Idaho Senate approved one such bill Wednesday, sending it to the House, while a similar bill won final legislative approval in the Kansas Senate. The same type of measure is pending in Oklahoma and Alabama.

In Ohio, there's been a hearing on an even tougher measure that would outlaw abortions after the first medically detectable heartbeat — as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. At that hearing, two pregnant women underwent ultrasounds so lawmakers could see and hear the fetal hearts.

The Ohio bill and the bans on abortions after 20 weeks are direct challenges to the legal status quo, based on Supreme Court rulings that permit abortions up to the point of a fetus' viability — approximately 24 weeks — and allow states to impose restrictions for abortions after that stage.

In Texas, a bill passed by the House would require that pregnant women have an opportunity to view a sonogram image, hear the fetal heartbeat and listen to a doctor describe the fetus. While the doctor would be obligated to provide the information, the woman could close her eyes or cover her ears, according to the bill, which doesn't exempt victims of rape or incest.

"We don't believe these bills will dissuade women who've already made their decisions," said Donna Crane of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "What we think they will do is harass and intimidate women who don't deserve it."

Balch disagreed, insisting that the South Dakota bill and the sonogram measures in several states were not coercive.

"When a woman is pregnant and doesn't want to be, the more information she has, the better," Balch said. "That's what these laws are trying to do — give a thoughtful pause so the mother can understand the options that are out there."

In more than 20 states, bills have been introduced to restrict insurance coverage of abortion. In Utah, one such measures — affecting both private and public plans — has cleared both legislative chambers and been sent to Gov. Gary Herbert.

Of the various types of bills, the insurance bans could have the broadest impact, according to some abortion-rights activists.

"You could have nearly half the states where you couldn't buy regular insurance coverage for abortion even with your own money," Crane said. "This is having a transformational effect on the insurance industry and the way abortion is viewed."

While routine first-trimester abortions generally cost $400 to $700, later and more complicated abortions can run into the thousands of dollars, especially if hospitalization is needed.

"A lot of these bills have an edge to them that really discounts the complications that can occur in pregnancy," said Planned Parenthood's Sussman. "There's a disregard for women's health."

Florida is a prime battleground. With a new Republican governor, Rick Scott, who touts his anti-abortion beliefs, conservative lawmakers have introduced at least 18 bills on the topic — including proposals to require ultrasound and to ban most insurance coverage of abortion.

"That could result in tens of thousands of women losing coverage," said Stephanie Kunkel, executive director of the Florida Association of Planned Parenthood Affiliates.A different tactic is being tried in Virginia, where lawmakers last month passed a bill requiring abortion clinics to be regulated on the same basis as hospitals. Abortion-rights group said this could entail higher costs and force several clinics to close.

Many of the states where anti-abortion bills are advancing have new Republican governors who made campaign pledges to support such efforts.

For example, Brownback urged Kansas legislators to create a "culture of life" and is considered likely to sign the pending bill that would tighten restrictions on abortion after the 21st week of pregnancy.

The sponsor of the Idaho bill to impose a similar ban after 20 weeks, Sen. Chuck Winder, summoned out-of-state medical and legal experts to tell colleagues that a fetus at that point will suffer pain during an abortion. It's a disputed assertion; the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says it knows of no legitimate evidence showing a fetus can ever experience pain.

Thus far, the year-old Nebraska law banning most abortions after 20 weeks has not been challenged in court. That has emboldening abortion foes to promote versions of it in other states this year even though the nationwide norm is to allow elective abortions up to roughly 24 weeks.

Jill June of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, which operates in Nebraska and Iowa, said she expected the 20-week ban to be challenged at some point — either in Nebraska or some other state that passes such a law.

She cited the case of Danielle Deaver, a Nebraska woman who — under the new law — was denied the option of terminating a pregnancy at 22 weeks after she learned the baby was nonviable.

Deaver ended up going into natural pre-term labor and gave birth to a girl who died after 15 minutes. She later told her story to local media, expressing hope that other legislators would consider the ramifications as they contemplated such bans.

"There will be more women like her who will be harmed if these laws continue to be passed in other states," June said.

"We don't believe these bills will dissuade women who've already made their decisions," said Donna Crane of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "What we think they will do is harass and intimidate women who don't deserve it."

Who deserves it is NOT YOUR FUCKING CALL.

And they blab on about mothers making informed decisions. I wouldn't mind that counseling if it was actually to inform potential mothers of the pros and cons of abortion, but instead it's just a platform where they can spout their ideology. And it's not just that they're delivering information in a biased manner: they outright lie.

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

"We don't believe these bills will dissuade women who've already made their decisions," said Donna Crane of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "What we think they will do is harass and intimidate women who don't deserve it."

Who deserves it is NOT YOUR FUCKING CALL.

And they blab on about mothers making informed decisions. I wouldn't mind that counseling if it was actually to inform potential mothers of the pros and cons of abortion, but instead it's just a platform where they can spout their ideology. And it's not just that they're delivering information in a biased manner: they outright lie.

Sooooooooo... You think that all women should be provided with information about how abortion is painful to the fetus, how it's a human life and their baby, and that anyone who is denying these things is a liar?

"We don't believe these bills will dissuade women who've already made their decisions," said Donna Crane of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "What we think they will do is harass and intimidate women who don't deserve it."

Who deserves it is NOT YOUR FUCKING CALL.

And they blab on about mothers making informed decisions. I wouldn't mind that counseling if it was actually to inform potential mothers of the pros and cons of abortion, but instead it's just a platform where they can spout their ideology. And it's not just that they're delivering information in a biased manner: they outright lie.

Sooooooooo... You think that all women should be provided with information about how abortion is painful to the fetus, how it's a human life and their baby, and that anyone who is denying these things is a liar?

No, I'm saying that people who lie about abortion (i.e. all counselors) shouldn't be allowed to council. The counselors are the ones that are lying.

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

I'm pretty sure that Donna Crane of NARAL Pro-Choice America isn't keen on the counselling either, sourmilk. In fact, she quite reasonably asserts that no-one deserves that sort of treatment. I can only assume you've misunderstood as you get worked up about that not being her call, particularly as you then go on to slam all counselors everywhere for being counselors.

The Article wrote:"Until the bills get on the governors' desks, it's premature to claim victory. But it's moving faster than it has in previous years. ... We're very pleased with the progress thus far."

See, the bolded bit really gets me angry here. They are looking at this from a political perspective. There's something to be won or lost here, something to wield over the heads of the opponents. Which, unfortunately, is an all too common stance on things that really shouldn't be treated that way. Abortion is something that actually affects people. It's not some stupid political talking point, it's something that lots of women make decision about on a pretty regular basis, and talking about the issue like it's only a tool to use on a political platform is seriously undermining the importance of the issue to a very nasty degree.

The story so far:In the beginning the Universe was created.This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.

Guys, lay off sourmilk. We all know what was meant and at whom the anger was directed.

Obby wrote:

The Article wrote:"Until the bills get on the governors' desks, it's premature to claim victory. But it's moving faster than it has in previous years. ... We're very pleased with the progress thus far."

See, the bolded bit really gets me angry here. They are looking at this from a political perspective. There's something to be won or lost here, something to wield over the heads of the opponents. Which, unfortunately, is an all too common stance on things that really shouldn't be treated that way. Abortion is something that actually affects people. It's not some stupid political talking point, it's something that lots of women make decision about on a pretty regular basis, and talking about the issue like it's only a tool to use on a political platform is seriously undermining the importance of the issue to a very nasty degree.

I concur. More should be said about this.

(possible trigger)

Spoiler:

Anti-abortionists like to forcibly thrust their morals into every woman’s vagina no matter who tells them to stop.

Even on the talking-point/policy side though:

Pro-choice means standing up for individual rights.

Opposing pro-choice means favoring a precedent of letting the government tell you what you can and can’t do with your body.

"We don't believe these bills will dissuade women who've already made their decisions," said Donna Crane of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "What we think they will do is harass and intimidate women who don't deserve it."

Who deserves it is NOT YOUR FUCKING CALL.

And they blab on about mothers making informed decisions. I wouldn't mind that counseling if it was actually to inform potential mothers of the pros and cons of abortion, but instead it's just a platform where they can spout their ideology. And it's not just that they're delivering information in a biased manner: they outright lie.

Do you think the pro-choice lobby wants every woman to have an abortion at the drop of a hat? People who want to have an abortion don't deserve to have people try to emotionally blackmail them into having a baby, and I'm sort of horrified to think that you do. A study in the Netherlands came out sometime this month showing that women who get abortions are not more likely to get depressed afterwards, so I don't know who this counselling is supposed to protect.

Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”

I hate reading these articles it makes me truly sad what people are willing to do to people in this supposedly free modern western world in the name of god and politics . I really feel sorry for the people who acively fight this kind of crap in legal and political arena's, it's got to be really disheartening to face this same bullshit year after year.

The only time I question the right to Free Speech is when I watch Fox News, probably due to the fact that I don't think they really believe in it. -Elisa Scaldaferri

"When a woman is pregnant and doesn't want to be, the more information she has, the better," Balch said. "That's what these laws are trying to do — give a thoughtful pause so the mother can understand the options that are out there.

As if a woman just decides one day "Fuck it. It's abortion time," and has also somehow in her life never heard of adoption.

I would have definitely said that the ultrasounds are unconstitutional, but I'm not so sure with the Department of Homeland Security around. I mean, shit, what if there's a bomb in there? Or a trrrist!!?

drkslvr wrote:A different tactic is being tried in Virginia, where lawmakers last month passed a bill requiring abortion clinics to be regulated on the same basis as hospitals. Abortion-rights group said this could entail higher costs and force several clinics to close.

So is this one actually a bad thing? It seems like, if they're actually going to be performing medical procedures, then they should actually be held to the same standards as hospitals, right?

"It is bitter – bitter", he answered,"But I like itBecause it is bitter,And because it is my heart."

drkslvr wrote:A different tactic is being tried in Virginia, where lawmakers last month passed a bill requiring abortion clinics to be regulated on the same basis as hospitals. Abortion-rights group said this could entail higher costs and force several clinics to close.

So is this one actually a bad thing? It seems like, if they're actually going to be performing medical procedures, then they should actually be held to the same standards as hospitals, right?

I think it would depend on what "regulated like a hospital" means. I'm not familiar with VA medical law, so it's entirely possible that, say, health clinics or doctors' offices have looser regulations than hospitals, so regulating abortion clinics like a hospital might add regulations they didn't have to deal with previously.

We should suggest that the government should stay out of private businesses and see how many heads explode.

drkslvr wrote:A different tactic is being tried in Virginia, where lawmakers last month passed a bill requiring abortion clinics to be regulated on the same basis as hospitals. Abortion-rights group said this could entail higher costs and force several clinics to close.

So is this one actually a bad thing? It seems like, if they're actually going to be performing medical procedures, then they should actually be held to the same standards as hospitals, right?

It depends on the difference in regulation between a normal health clinic (which can do certain outpatient procedures), and that of hospitals, and I don't know enough about the states to know what the difference in regulations are.

Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”

drkslvr wrote:A different tactic is being tried in Virginia, where lawmakers last month passed a bill requiring abortion clinics to be regulated on the same basis as hospitals. Abortion-rights group said this could entail higher costs and force several clinics to close.

So is this one actually a bad thing? It seems like, if they're actually going to be performing medical procedures, then they should actually be held to the same standards as hospitals, right?

As others have said, it depends upon what 'regulated like a hospital' means.

I think hospitals are required to have active staff on duty at all times in case of emergencies, for example. Such a regulation would obviously be ridiculous for abortion clinics. So if 'regulated like a hospital' means that, it is just a method to obstruct abortion clinics.

It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

drkslvr wrote:A different tactic is being tried in Virginia, where lawmakers last month passed a bill requiring abortion clinics to be regulated on the same basis as hospitals. Abortion-rights group said this could entail higher costs and force several clinics to close.

So is this one actually a bad thing? It seems like, if they're actually going to be performing medical procedures, then they should actually be held to the same standards as hospitals, right?

As others have said, it depends upon what 'regulated like a hospital' means.

I think hospitals are required to have active staff on duty at all times in case of emergencies, for example. Such a regulation would obviously be ridiculous for abortion clinics. So if 'regulated like a hospital' means that, it is just a method to obstruct abortion clinics.

Also there's lots of medical procedures that are done outside of actual hospitals, most dentists and endodontists (oral surgeons) operate in more-or-less regular-old office buildings for example. "Regulating them like hospitals" sounds good to the layperson that hasn't given it a lot of thought, but it's just spin to make the thing more palatable to those who don't have a strong opinion one way or the other; it's not "Anti Abortion" it's "safety regulations".

We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Of course, if people believe that aborting a fetus is tantamount to murdering another human being, then of course they are going to want to make abortion illegal.

Still, it's an issue that has a huge effect on the mother, and since I will never have the need for such a procedure (being a man), I don't feel like I can tell to a pregnant woman what she wants to do with her body. Although I could try and give advice if she asked me for it, it is ultimately up to the pregnant woman to decide what she wants to do with the fetus (whether she aborts it or carries the child to birth). Any consequences that result from the course of action she takes are also hers to face.

I really should be working right now, but somehow I don't have the energy.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:My moral system allows me to bitch slap you for typing that.

I finally figured out why everybody was misinterpreting what I've said. The antecedent for "it" was unclear. When she said "harassing people who don't deserve it", I thought that "it" meant "abortions'.

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

sourmìlk wrote:I finally figured out why everybody was misinterpreting what I've said. The antecedent for "it" was unclear. When she said "harassing people who don't deserve it", I thought that "it" meant "abortions'.

Really? I assumed that 'it' referred to 'those who have committed an actual moral misdeed' almost instantly.

I really should be working right now, but somehow I don't have the energy.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:My moral system allows me to bitch slap you for typing that.

I'd like to preface what I'm about to say with two things: first, I am personally pro-choice, second, I know I will get chewed out for this, have fun bashing me, I hope it informs my view of this issue.

I personally see the whole issue as very simple, the mother should have control over her body. Period. Yet I can totally see why someone would be pro-life. I know many members of my family who are ardently pro-life, and while I don't respect the choice they've made, I respect their reasons for making it. I know that many people have a very visceral reaction to what can be so close to your heart. Yet it angers me when I see a forum like this, of usually intelligent and thoughtful people, attacking viciously the beliefs of someone else. And these are not simple, inflammatory beliefs.

this may sound like an attempt to guilt trip people cloaked in repeated appeals to "pro-choice beliefs"

Spoiler:

Think about what the two sides of this issue are saying(yes I will use the classical labels although they annoy me):

Pro-choice: A woman has a right to choose. She has the right to stop her life from going to complete shit from an unwanted pregnancy. She has the right to abort a child who may end up being unwanted and resented. She has control of her own body.

Pro-life: A baby is life. Abortion is ending a life. Killing a child is not the answer to the problems presented by the unwanted pregnancy.

Look at those two points. Really think about them. I mean shit, they're both damn convincing, and I respect the reasons of both sides. I may not respect the conclusion, but that's another thing. This issue is one where it isn't simple bigotry. We can't just say "Oh it's like intolerance and they're being unreasonable."

I know that there are all these arguments as to why a fetus isn't truly a human yet. And I buy those arguments. But just for one minute, try and realize that those other people, those people we so happily portray as horrible, uncaring, mean, cruel, incapable of understanding, are working off a reaction that is the basis of human society and in many cases a very genuine belief. They believe a fetus is a child, a life. Think about that. I know we all want to say "it's the woman's choice" and make this whole issue go away. But it's not that simple. If you think something was alive, something had the same inherent potential as any wanted human child, you would go a long way to defend IT's rights.

It almost hurts me to type this, because I don't believe the pro-life arguments myself, but I can't help but see why they'd think that. I'm sorry.

The 62-foot tall statue of Jesus constructed out of styrofoam, wood and fiberglass resin caught on fire after the right hand of the statue was struck by lightning.

Ultimately, the abortion debate is one of the hard ones because it does stand on exactly that tricky moral ground. And to be honest, I'd think that everyone who is pro-choice has had to consider that argument against it. And given that it's a wholly moral debate, it's a harder debate then say, the debate against creationism. There we have facts and figures and there is a clear right and wrong.

But in saying that, I think there's a fairly convincing argument for being pro-choice. And more importantly, I think there is a big distinction between the pro-choice and anti-choice arguments:

We (being pro-choice) are not actively trying to restrict what they (being anti-choice) can do.*

If *they* think that abortions are wrong and that unborn babies are human beings too, then that's their choice, and I wholeheartedly agree that they should be allowed that belief. And then when they choose to not have an abortion and instead bring an unwanted baby to term, then I wholeheartedly believe they should be allowed to do that. That's what pro-choice is. No-one has *ever* pushed for unwanted abortions, in fact, no-one has ever pushed for a woman to have an abortion when she hadn't made that decision herself, barring the case where it's a health risk to not have the abortion.

But being anti-choice is being exactly... anti-choice. They've decided that whatever your morality is, it completely overrides mine, and they should be allowed to legislate as such. Now, I can understand this in some cases - given that an overwhelming majority agree that 'not killing that guy over there' is a good idea, we legislate against murder. But there's not an overwhelming majority against abortion, and there exists good arguments that it is quite necessary.

And then we get a lot of people coming in here and insisting that they know definitely what is right and wrong, and we should bow to their will. And that will invariably piss people off. Hence why there's a fairly vehement response to anti-choice people in these fora.

doogly wrote:Oh yea, obviously they wouldn't know Griffiths from Sakurai if I were throwing them at them.

I think there are other threads more specific to the morality of abortion. I will say that defining a fetus as a human life doesn't negate pro-choice arguments; could you force someone to donate a kidney to save a human life? could you force someone to donate an organ for 9 months to save a human life?

Although that does bring me to another point, where are the absurd claims and controversial proposals from the other side? Why isn't there more hollering from the Left?

Another thing that bothers me,

In Texas, a bill passed by the House would require that pregnant women have an opportunity to view a sonogram image, hear the fetal heartbeat and listen to a doctor describe the fetus

who decides what the description of the fetus is? Fetuses are the creepiest looking things ever. Lastly,

At that hearing, two pregnant women underwent ultrasounds so lawmakers could see and hear the fetal hearts.

That this is a real thing that happened is something I can't quite comprehend.

I can not make sense of how they think they will prosecute ANYONE in Arizona without testimony from the two key people. The doctor, who can't convict himself, and the woman, who can't provide testimony that isn't hearsay.

- Ochigo the Earth-Stomper

The EGE wrote:

Mumpy wrote:And to this day, librarians revile Oregonaut as the Antichrist.

False! We sacrifice our card catalogues to him in the name of Job Security!

Cephalopod, just to bring out a potential counter-example to that, four men stuck on a boat will starve to death unless they kill the crippled man who will die anyway and eat him for sustenance. They get prosecuted for murder. That's how it works. Now of course, it's completely and totally facetious to state that this is in any way equivalent to the abortion debate, but you can see how someone might try and use it.

Again, kinda guilt trippy interpretations possible.

Spoiler:

And this, Sourmilk and Cephalopod, is where we get to the distinction that is of the utmost importance in criminal cases, and in the moral beliefs of the pro-life people(I actually will use that instead of anti-choice, because I feel that while it is probably jsut an attempt to frame the debate in their favor, it also represents the semi-respectable moral basis they have). The distinction is between active and passive events. Sure, they can't force you to give up your kidney, but it's also illegal for you to kill someone so you don't die, much less cause discomfort to them

The 62-foot tall statue of Jesus constructed out of styrofoam, wood and fiberglass resin caught on fire after the right hand of the statue was struck by lightning.

I think sex during pregnancy should be illegal. Think about it: it's basically pedophilia, or abuse. You would not have sex with your child in the room, not to mention stick your penis up against him or her. A fetus can certainly hear it, if not feel it as well.

I said that out of frustration at endless specious arguments of that type in favor of pro-life. By the way, vision is vaguely starting development at 5 months. I do not know about touch or hearing, but there is some indication of hearing in later term from what I know. Anyone who kills cows but not fetuses is an extraordinary hypocrite. Cows are even much more developed. Fact: "pro-life" is anti-abortionism, arising out of reactionary counter-movements to feminism. At this point, many people have been fooled into thinking it is something else. That is what it is, though.

As for this specific thread, I find this upsetting. I wish I had a way to get the best pro-choice arguments I have out there better, so I could make a more solid contribution to the cause. This should not be happening. I think the 20 week limit will clearly be struck down. That's a grave miscalculation on the part of Republicans. I do not know if the waiting time or lectures will be. They could be, though. It is clear that the purpose is to dissuade abortion. Technically, it also limits the right to abortions that does exist to people who undergo these procedures. Perhaps it does have a chance of being struck down after all. My more remote hope is that we somehow get another liberal Supreme Court Justice. I think it is more likely if Obama gets reelected, or any Democrat does. Hell, maybe even a moderate Republican would be ok for this purpose.

If the organism inside the woman's womb is a human being, then aborting it is murder. A harder life for the mother is not worth killing someone. Choice over a woman's body is not worth a life.

But it's not clear to me (or anyone, I don't think, that really looks at things objectively) when the organism becomes a human being. Most everyone agrees that infanticide is wrong (I do) and that killing the organism when the mother is dilated and having contractions is also wrong (I do as well). But I don't have a problem with the morning after pill. Where along development of the organism does that change?

Intellectually, quality anti-abortion arguments convince me more than quality pro-abortion arguments. Emotionally, I feel a pull to the pro-abortion side. I haven't come up with a satisfying theory regarding abortion yet.

Because of that, I'm going to ignore the moral aspects of this and focus on the legal. The national government has already ruled on the legality of abortion. A long time ago. Thirty eight years ago, to be exact.

It's pretty clear that these laws aren't really serving the people. They're restricting unnecessarily the legal rights afforded to citizens by Roe v. Wade. To me, these laws are just like poll taxes. The government has ruled on the legality of a certain action, and, instead of challenging the actual decision or law, conservatives have sought to make it...god, I can't think of the word. Not mattering. In-...something. Immaterial is close but not what I want. Anyway. Yeah, they've sought to make it immaterial by just restricting access so much that it's impossible for some.

If someone had a semi-developed siamese twin inside them, no anti-abortionist, no legal establishment, no politician would blink an eye. It has nothing to do with morality at all. Except, after these arguments get made, pro-lifers adopt the counterexamples, assuming that no one remembers. Well, I remember. They need to stop being dishonest.

Dark Avorian wrote:Active vs. Passive. You know there is a difference.

Throwing water on a fire is not more immoral than letting a house burn down.